NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure if you ask those kids, they will think of it as family.

Lineage doesn't affect it at all. Otherwise, adoptive families couldn't very well be families, right?

I see your point. :)

That suggests we are only talking about two adults, and that those two adults are specifically living as a couple...?

I had the pre-family stage in mind, with adults living together. ;)

But you're right, even though I tried the loosest definition that came to my mind, it doesn't cover all families, really.

It becomes detrimental to you as a person, when you let it be all that you encompass. When all you have to offer the world is you are gay, or a pot smoker, if there is nothing remotely interesting about you other than something you do or a choice you make, then to me, you are a waste of space. There are people out there that like having sex with warm glasses of milk. I don't see them marching around.

I mostly agree with you, but I'll say this: People having sex with warm glasses of milk have never had to fight for the right to do so. They have never been persecuted, abused, or systematically destroyed. They have nothing to march around for. Don't criticise gay people for being "proud". "Pride" isn't a statement of superiority, it's a statement of equality. It's saying "I don't give two sh*ts what you think."

Ok, why is a family not the present, past, and future?


Because it's not.

A certain family has a parental figure who is a pure horror. He's an abusive parent that sexually abuses the children, violently abuses the other parent, and is destructive to the family unit.

When that parent conveniently dies in a deus-ex-machina related accident, the family is whole for the first time. What came before was not 'family', what comes after will not intrinsically be family... but, for right now - it is.


Maybe you need to meditate on it a bit more.


Maybe you need to think outside the box. (Of course, I'm suspecting this is actually a little bit of roleplay on your part, so maybe not).


This explains why you have not made it a foundation for your interconnectedness with all of creation and not helped you to be more loving and compassionate perhaps?


Silly to jump to conclusions.


I bet you are not even an environmentalist.

It's your dollar.

Okay...there are eight definitions of "family" in Merriam-Webster:

1: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household
2 a: a group of persons of common ancestry : clan b: a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : race
3 a: a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : fellowship b: the staff of a high official (as the President)
4: a group of things related by common characteristics: as a: a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds b: a group of soils with similar chemical and physical properties (as texture, pH, and mineral content) that comprise a category ranking above the series and below the subgroup in soil classification c: a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5 a: the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family <a single-parent family> b: spouse and children <want to spend more time with my family>
6 a: a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera bin livestock breeding (1): the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2): an identifiable strain within a breed
7: a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters
8: a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area

Unless we pick one defintion as a starting point this discussion as absolutely no point.

That's not a good enough defintion for any kind of meaningful discussion. If that's your defintion there's no point in discussing anything related to family because everything would be familial.

And that's bad?

A tighter defintion is better?

People that relate to each other as family... are family.

My family consists of people I am related to... it includes people I'm married to (or related to by marriage). It includes some people I'm not related to in any conventional sense. It doesn't include all the people I am related to in the conventional sense.

How is that not meaningful?

Okay...there are eight definitions of "family" in Merriam-Webster:

1: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household
2 a: a group of persons of common ancestry : clan b: a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : race
3 a: a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : fellowship b: the staff of a high official (as the President)
4: a group of things related by common characteristics: as a: a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds b: a group of soils with similar chemical and physical properties (as texture, pH, and mineral content) that comprise a category ranking above the series and below the subgroup in soil classification c: a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5 a: the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family <a single-parent family> b: spouse and children <want to spend more time with my family>
6 a: a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera bin livestock breeding (1): the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2): an identifiable strain within a breed
7: a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters
8: a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area

Unless we pick one defintion as a starting point this discussion as absolutely no point.

I opt for 1, 2, (possibly) 3 and 5.

Because it's not.

A certain family has a parental figure who is a pure horror. He's an abusive parent that sexually abuses the children, violently abuses the other parent, and is destructive to the family unit.

When that parent conveniently dies in a deus-ex-machina related accident, the family is whole for the first time. What came before was not 'family', what comes after will not intrinsically be family... but, for right now - it is.



Maybe you need to think outside the box. (Of course, I'm suspecting this is actually a little bit of roleplay on your part, so maybe not).



Silly to jump to conclusions.



It's your dollar.

That horrible parent dishonored the family. Sometimes divorce or ostracism is needed to defend the family honor (family honor essentially means the well being and best interests of the family unit as a whole)

And that's bad?

A tighter defintion is better?

People that relate to each other as family... are family.

My family consists of people I am related to... it includes people I'm married to (or related to by marriage). It includes some people I'm not related to in any conventional sense. It doesn't include all the people I am related to in the conventional sense.

How is that not meaningful?

"People" wasn't meaningful. You've now introduced something else that is better: "relations". But what type of relations specifically? Blood, obviously. What else?

I had the pre-family stage in mind, with adults living together. ;)

But you're right, even though I tried the loosest definition that came to my mind, it doesn't cover all families, really.

Near me, there live two old grannies. Dear little things, they are... and they've been all there is in the world for each other for... I don't know... decades.

They aren't 'a couple'. They're not sexual partners, not married. They're just people that live together as family.

I think they are a family.

That horrible parent dishonored the family. Sometimes divorce or ostracism is needed to defend the family honor (family honor essentially means the well being and best interests of the family unit as a whole)

What on Earth is family honour? That concept has been dead for a long, long time. If you are roleplaying, could you please say so, that I might stop frothing at you?

That horrible parent dishonored the family. Sometimes divorce or ostracism is needed to defend the family honor (family honor essentially means the well being and best interests of the family unit as a whole)

We agree that the 'ogre' was destructive to the concept of family. The 'family' wasn't whole or 'real' until that person was gone. Thus - while past, present and future can figure in our understanding... only 'present' is implicit in the reality.

Near me, there live two old grannies. Dear little things, they are... and they've been all there is in the world for each other for... I don't know... decades.

They aren't 'a couple'. They're not sexual partners, not married. They're just people that live together as family.

I think they are a family.

See, if you asked me and my fiance what our family is, we'd both reply : The two of us and our cats.

No, we're not some nutcases who treat the cats like children and center their lives around their pets. But the cats live with us, they depend on us, and need to be taken good care of. So they are part of the family, really.

What on Earth is family honour? That concept has been dead for a long, long time. If you are roleplaying, could you please say so, that I might stop frothing at you?

Nay. Family honour is alive and well where traditional families (heterosexual couple, usually monogamic etc.) are still regarded highly (many Asian societies).

Nay. Family honour is alive and well where traditional families (heterosexual couple, usually monogamic etc.) are still regarded highly (many Asian societies).

I wouldn't do well in societies like this...

"People" wasn't meaningful. You've now introduced something else that is better: "relations". But what type of relations specifically? Blood, obviously. What else?

"People" was meaningful... it is the only part that is ESSENTIAL, surely?

What type of relations? Anything that makes the unit function as 'family'. Blood isn't that obvious - I don't consider everyone I am related to by 'blood' to be part of MY family.

Friends... lovers... mentors.. guardians... wards... dependents... etc. Think about it.

Nay. Family honour is alive and well where traditional families (heterosexual couple, usually monogamic etc.) are still regarded highly (many Asian societies).
And in the mob.

Okay. I have a new singular defintion for family: family is the people or other living creatures (including plants) that we do live with and enjoy living with them. People who hate each other but living together and/or have blood or legal relations with are "family" but are not really "family".

See, if you asked me and my fiance what our family is, we'd both reply : The two of us and our cats.

No, we're not some nutcases who treat the cats like children and center their lives around their pets. But the cats live with us, they depend on us, and need to be taken good care of. So they are part of the family, really.

I'm inclined to agree.

I mostly agree with you, but I'll say this: People having sex with warm glasses of milk have never had to fight for the right to do so. They have never been persecuted, abused, or systematically destroyed. They have nothing to march around for. Don't criticise gay people for being "proud". "Pride" isn't a statement of superiority, it's a statement of equality. It's saying "I don't give two sh*ts what you think."

I'm not criticizing people for being proud. I'm doing it because every gay person I've ever come into contact with, that acted like that, shoved it in my face and made it seem like I was the asshole because I'm not gay. Like their decision to be gay was better than any decision I could have ever made. I have gay friends, and they don't act like that. So what if you have sex with the same gender, so what if you dress weird, or pierce yourself and hang from the ceiling, so what if you are uber Christian and think all women should wear dresses and stay in the kitchen. Don't shove it in my face, and I won't shove my fist down your throat.

It is important to think of the family as the future and past generations too. You can draw great strength, wisdom, and pride from the past. You can know that throughout the generations people went through what you did and worse but still managed to get married, stay merried and raise children. If you do not have that you are at risk of acting trashy and weak.

It is important to think about the future and the need to set a good moral example and to preserve the environment. It is also important to realize how interconnected family is so that you see the humanness in others. Also you can gain a greater appreciation for the connection that you share with others of different species which will hopefully make you more compassionate. How is this pure fantasy?

Nay. Family honour is alive and well where traditional families (heterosexual couple, usually monogamic etc.) are still regarded highly (many Asian societies).

I mean in the West. There is no concept of "family honour" anymore. Not where I come from, at least.

I mean in the West. There is no concept of "family honour" anymore. Not where I come from, at least.

Well, poor you. ;)

It is important to think about the future and the need to set a good moral example and to preserve the environment. It is also important to realize how interconnected family is so that you see the humanness in others. Also you can gain a greater appreciation for the connection that you share with others of different species which will hopefully make you more compassionate. How is this pure fantasy?
Because you also contend the above can only be achieved with a married heterosexual couple.

I mean in the West. There is no concept of "family honour" anymore. Not where I come from, at least.

Are you from the trailer park?

Because you also contend the above can only be achieved with a married heterosexual couple.

This a premise. The married couple is also a premise. They are distinct premises. Man you guys are obsessed with the gay thing. I bet you are all a bunch of gays.

And the reason why the gay and lesbian community is not taken seriously is because the majority that you see are only interested in sexual gratification. You can look anywhere, look on craigslist, go downtown to a bar, it's everywhere. And I'm not singling out homosexuals, heterosexuals do it too. Our society is dominated by sex, we are surrounded by it. And if anyone, anywhere is ever to be taken seriously, they have to get past the primitive disposition aligned with sexual gratification. You want to be taken seriously as a person, stop having sex with everything that has a pulse and bragging about it.

Okay. I have a new singular defintion for family: family is the people or other living creatures (including plants) that we do live with and enjoy living with them. People who hate each other but living together and/or have blood or legal relations with are "family" but are not really "family".

You don't have to enjoy living with them.... although it's obviously preferable... but this is a much better definition, already, than assuming some certain set of parameters that specify genders, numbers of allowed figures, specific types of allowed relationship, or specific allowable adherences to any other set of socio-religious norms.

How about "People (or other entities) that we live with in some reasonable degree of mutually acceptable interdependency?"

You're right about the 'family' thing, though... what we call 'family' isn't always 'family'.

It is important to think of the family as the future and past generations too. You can draw great strength, wisdom, and pride from the past. You can know that throughout the generations people went through what you did and worse but still managed to get married, stay merried and raise children. If you do not have that you are at risk of acting trashy and weak.Strength through joy, huh?
It is important to think about the future and the need to set a good moral example and to preserve the environment. It is also important to realize how interconnected family is so that you see the humanness in others. Also you can gain a greater appreciation for the connection that you share with others of different species which will hopefully make you more compassionate. How is this pure fantasy?The days when women stayed married to abusive husbands because that's what was expected were not moral. Not in the least.

It is important to think of the family as the future and past generations too. You can draw great strength, wisdom, and pride from the past. You can know that throughout the generations people went through what you did and worse but still managed to get married, stay merried and raise children.


No. It is maybe helpful... nice.... preferable (maybe) to have those things... but none of it is REQUIRED for 'family'.


It is important to think about the future and the need to set a good moral example and to preserve the environment. It is also important to realize how interconnected family is so that you see the humanness in others.


Ah - so what you mean is, by looking through the people you live with, you can realise that 'family' is more than just the people you live with?

You don't have to enjoy living with them.... although it's obviously preferable... but this is a much better definition, already, than assuming some certain set of parameters that specify genders, numbers of allowed figures, specific types of allowed relationship, or specific allowable adherences to any other set of socio-religious norms.

How about "People (or other entities) that we live with in some reasonable degree of mutually acceptable interdependency?"

You're right about the 'family' thing, though... what we call 'family' isn't always 'family'.

I think blood needs to be a part of this as well, somehow. For example, I live about 6000 miles away from home but my parents are obviously still my parents. And I wouldn't call all the people whom I currently live under the same roof with "family".

This a premise. The married couple is also a premise. They are distinct premises. Man you guys are obsessed with the gay thing. I bet you are all a bunch of gays.

I'm certainly a bunch of gays, I don't know about them. Perhaps you would deign to condescend to look at the title of the thread you're derailing with your dogma-spouting?

This a premise. The married couple is also a premise. They are distinct premises. Man you guys are obsessed with the gay thing. I bet you are all a bunch of gays.

The ironic thing is... you know what often comes out to be the truth about people who fight so vehemently against homosexuals/homosexuality, yes?

Am I the only guy here with the following characteristics:
1. Married
2. American
3. 30 years old or more
4. Highly educated
5. Conservative
6. Believe human rights are worth fighting for
7. Believe in the importance of family values
8. Loves capitalism

I mean I am just about sick of talking to people who seem like they are from another planet. Everyone is young. Most are liberals. Many are gay. Most are British. Most are in high school or college. Most are teenagers.

What is it with you folks and why do I bother discussing things with you?

*starts having nervous breakdown*

I think blood needs to be a part of this as well, somehow. For example, I live about 6000 miles away from home but my parents are obviously still my parents.

And if it turns out you are adopted?

And if it turns out you are adopted?

Adoption and blood is the same. It happens by the mystical process of adoption. It is a constructive blood relationship

Am I the only guy here with the following characteristics:
1. Married
2. American
3. 30 years old or more
4. Highly educated
5. Conservative
6. Believe human rights are worth fighting for
7. Believe in the importance of family values
8. Loves capitalism

I mean I am just about sick of talking to people who seem like they are from another planet. Everyone is young. Most are liberals. Many are gay. Most are British. Most are in high school or college. Most are teenagers.

What is it with you folks and why do I bother discussing things with you?

*starts having nervous breakdown*

"Am I the only bastard here?"

No, I think there are a few others...

Believe human rights are worth fighting for, my a*se. Yes, you agree that the human rights of those who agree with you are worth fighting for, my narrow-minded friend.

Wait, wait, wait, look at this!

"30 years old ... highly educated ... I bet you're all a bunch of gays"

*laughs raucously*

And if it turns out you are adopted?

We're still family, of course.

But even if I was adopted by my parents, the relationship with my biological parents would still be family though, wouldn't it?

Then we'd have to start adding qualifiers: "adopted family"; "biological family".

And then everything starts to become complicated.

Am I the only guy here with the following characteristics:
1. Married
2. American
3. 30 years old or more
4. Highly educated
5. Conservative
6. Believe human rights are worth fighting for
7. Believe in the importance of family values
8. Loves capitalism

I mean I am just about sick of talking to people who seem like they are from another planet. Everyone is young. Most are liberals. Many are gay. Most are British. Most are in high school or college. Most are teenagers.

What is it with you folks and why do I bother discussing things with you?

*starts having nervous breakdown*


I actually agree with you on most of the traditional family value stuff. But these are personalised additions. As we are proving people have different conceptions of what "family" means and I think it's more fruitful to find out the common definition instead of arguing on different terms.

"Am I the only bastard here?"

No, I think there are a few others...

Believe human rights are worth fighting for, my a*se. Yes, you agree that the human rights of those who agree with you are worth fighting for, my narrow-minded friend.

Wait, wait, wait, look at this!

"30 years old ... highly educated ... I bet you're all a bunch of gays"

*laughs raucously*

The nice thing about human rights is that they are universally accepted by everyone except tyrants and psychopaths. The conservative and the liberal and the moral majority and the gay transvestite all agree that people should not be incarcerated and or tortured for their political and religious beliefs.

Oh indeed. If you're so humanitarian, why should gays not be allowed to marry/have children?

You can rationalise all you want, your argument will still be "They're not like me! I'm afraid, what do I do!? I know, I better try to exert power over them!"

Oh, oh, oh, and what about the gay people who identify with the gender they were born as? D-do they accept human rights?

"I mean I am just about sick of talking to people who seem like they are from another planet. Everyone is young. Most are liberals. Many are gay. Most are British. Most are in high school or college. Most are teenagers."

I'm not sure if you're using the word "creation" literally or not - based on that little profile you gave us, I assume so. You're at least very religious. That usually means an argument isn't worthwhile.

The nice thing about human rights is that they are universally accepted by everyone except tyrants and psychopaths. The conservative and the liberal and the moral majority and the gay transvestite all agree that people should not be incarcerated and or tortured for their political and religious beliefs.

*POP*

That was the sound of your bubble bursting. Human rights are not universally accepted by everyone except for tyrants and psychopaths.

*POP*

That was the sound of your bubble bursting. Human rights are not universally accepted by everyone except for tyrants and psychopaths.

Say what now? What mainstream people really believe that people should really be jailed or tortured for political or religious beliefs?

Am I the only guy here with the following characteristics:
1. Married
2. American
3. 30 years old or more
4. Highly educated
5. Conservative
6. Believe human rights are worth fighting for
7. Believe in the importance of family values
8. Loves capitalism

I mean I am just about sick of talking to people who seem like they are from another planet. Everyone is young. Most are liberals. Many are gay. Most are British. Most are in high school or college. Most are teenagers.

What is it with you folks and why do I bother discussing things with you?

*starts having nervous breakdown*

Who matches all those characteristics? And your narrow definitions of them? Probably.

Adoption and blood is the same. It happens by the mystical process of adoption. It is a constructive blood relationship

Don't be silly.

'Blood' is blood... genetic traits do not pass through the adoption process.

We're still family, of course.

But even if I was adopted by my parents, the relationship with my biological parents would still be family though, wouldn't it?

Then we'd have to start adding qualifiers: "adopted family"; "biological family".

And then everything starts to become complicated.

Family is complicated.

Am I the only guy here with the following characteristics:
1. Married
2. American
3. 30 years old or more
4. Highly educated
5. Conservative
6. Believe human rights are worth fighting for
7. Believe in the importance of family values
8. Loves capitalism



Yes. All the other married people who believe in family values are offline, spending time with their families.

Good role models sure, but why should gender enter into it?

Because some people are inherently insecure about their sexuality and need to reaffirm it by adhering to sexual stereotypes.

Poopycock! Divorce is an emergency escape hatch that should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances. A poor marriage is the result of poor relationship skills and damaged minds and souls. An unhappy marriage is an illness to be cured not a monster to be killed.

You know absolutely nothing about what good comes from divorce. All you see is a "broken" family, I'll tell you what I see and this is from hardcore experience that you can't get from reading books or the news.

My parents divorced when I was 7 years old. To say they were unhappy would've been the greatest understatement of the year.

One look at the Christmas pictures from that year showed not one single happy face in the family. My parents divorced before it got worse because they knew that there was no point in trying to resolve their differences while they slowly grew apart and the resentment grew.

I'm 25 years old now and I can see how happy my parents are now. My mother is in a stable loving marriage. The relationship she started after she and my father divorced has lasted longer than her previous marriage did.

Love is one of the biggest motivators in driving marriage.

Because my parents realised that they couldn't make it together they divorced early on which meant NO CUSTODY BATTLE. That's right, they were able to settle their differences out of court and I spent equal time at about houses; switched every Friday.

I dare you to tell me that my father and I weren't a family; I dare you to say that I didn't have a family with my mother and step-father!

I have a real family. The divorce didn't result in a broken family but it gave me two new small and very functional families I divided my time between.

This a premise. The married couple is also a premise. They are distinct premises. Man you guys are obsessed with the gay thing. I bet you are all a bunch of gays.

I'm not gay; I'm bi in a heterosexual civil union - yes, that's right, I refuse to call it marriage because my husband and I are equal to every gay couple out there who wants the same rights as us.

A family is a unit of people, blood related or not who come together to protect each other from the hurt, hatred and pain in the world. A family doesn't need to have a mother, father and children. A family is more than just that; these are people who give a damn about each other and love one another as though they were truly family. Even if blood is thicker than water, water is a far more powerful element in the world.

Because some people are inherently insecure about their sexuality and need to reaffirm it by adhering to sexual stereotypes.



You know absolutely nothing about what good comes from divorce. All you see is a "broken" family, I'll tell you what I see and this is from hardcore experience that you can't get from reading books or the news.

My parents divorced when I was 7 years old. To say they were unhappy would've been the greatest understatement of the year.

One look at the Christmas pictures from that year showed not one single happy face in the family. My parents divorced before it got worse because they knew that there was no point in trying to resolve their differences while they slowly grew apart and the resentment grew.

I'm 25 years old now and I can see how happy my parents are now. My mother is in a stable loving marriage. The relationship she started after she and my father divorced has lasted longer than her previous marriage did.

Love is one of the biggest motivators in driving marriage.

Because my parents realised that they couldn't make it together they divorced early on which meant NO CUSTODY BATTLE. That's right, they were able to settle their differences out of court and I spent equal time at about houses; switched every Friday.

I dare you to tell me that my father and I weren't a family; I dare you to say that I didn't have a family with my mother and step-father!

I have a real family. The divorce didn't result in a broken family but it gave me two new small and very functional families I divided my time between.



I'm not gay; I'm bi in a heterosexual civil union - yes, that's right, I refuse to call it marriage because my husband and I are equal to every gay couple out there who wants the same rights as us.

A family is a unit of people, blood related or not who come together to protect each other from the hurt, hatred and pain in the world. A family doesn't need to have a mother, father and children. A family is more than just that; these are people who give a damn about each other and love one another as though they were truly family. Even if blood is thicker than water, water is a far more powerful element in the world.

Oh man you are so gay.

Being blind prevents you from seeing, being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to). Is anyone willing to argue that seeing or procreating are bad?
Yes actually, Seeing = Brutal Genocide/Murder/Grannies boobs

Procreating = Whiney kids that simply scream when they want something.

I'm not gay; I'm bi in a heterosexual civil union - yes, that's right, I refuse to call it marriage because my husband and I are equal to every gay couple out there who wants the same rights as us.


As a gay guy myself I have to say that's very sweet of you. :D I'm in Canada where full marriage is legal now, but I still feel really deeply for the people in the United States and around the world who are being oppressed to any degree; whether it's being killed or imprisoned for simply being homosexual or bisexual, or having the government tell them that they're not entitled to the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals.

As a gay guy myself I have to say that's very sweet of you. :D I'm in Canada where full marriage is legal now, but I still feel really deeply for the people in the United States and around the world who are being oppressed to any degree; whether it's being killed or imprisoned for simply being homosexual or bisexual, or having the government tell them that they're not entitled to the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals.

That's because we're all human and we're all equal until we prove otherwise.

To oppress someone for something they have no control over is telling them that they're failing as a human being. Progress is stuck in neutral because of this and because people don't want to dare step beyond what they know.

In a Canadian context, I feel no shame in saying 'I'm married' because we're all equal here. For others, I don't because they aren't being treated like humans. If we were all the same, life would be boring. Diversity in nature is important. It's important as long as we recognise that at the end of the day we're all human and we all have the same rights.

We all have families and those families are imperfect because we as humans are imperfect, but it's the tiny imperfections and mistakes that help families evolve, even if means the family has to break down in order to rebuild.

Divorce is a hurricane; the winds of change but after the eye passes, we can begin to rebuild bigger and better.

No. Lets start with this basic fundamental principle. It is the foundation for everything else.

So, you admit that the rest of it is bunk as well?

A number of adults raising a number of children.

My parents are dead, my siblings are no longer raising children. Are my siblings, my niece, and my nephew no longer "family" because there are no children and no adults raising them?

Am I the only guy here with the following characteristics:
1. Married
2. American
3. 30 years old or more
4. Highly educated
5. Conservative
6. Believe human rights are worth fighting for
7. Believe in the importance of family values
8. Loves capitalism


5 is a minority here, I don't think you actually believe 6.

5 is a minority here, I don't think you actually believe 6.

And given his "you are so gay" comment, I think we can reasonably doubt 1, 3 and 4.

Oh man you are so gay.

Which part of "I'm not gay" was it that confused you?

I think I could write a long post about family values and the largely gay NS general crowd would focus 99% of their attention on the part that says that families are started by a man and a woman who are married. These values are timeless. Ok here I go about family values.

1. Family begins with a man and a woman who are married. Illegitimate children are a stain on a family's honor and are not a great way to bring children into this world. If you are gay or are not in a married relationship you are still a member of the family but are not in a position to start a new branch of the family.

2. Mom and Dad need to communicate with each other.

3. Mom and Dad need to be honest with each other.

4. Mom and Dad need to be honest with the children and communicate with them.

5. The children are the number one priority. If you are not ready to make them the number one priority, then you are not ready to have children.

6. The children must be disciplined if they need it. Anything less is child neglect and stains the honor of the family.

7. No family member must ever abuse another family member.

8. No family member shall dishonor the family (whatever that means is often a social variable)

9. Raising spoiled children is child neglect. See Rule 5.

10. Raising children in poverty is child neglect. If you are not economically ready to provide for a child you are not ready for children.

11. Adopting out or abortion is a family member's sole decision. Failure to do either when required by circumstances is a stain on the family's honor.

12. Parents may obligate children to do for their children as done onto them by their parents. An example is paying college education expenses.

13. Parents must do everything possible to encourage the moral and physical health of their children.

14. Family members should not withold reasonable requests for assistance from other family members.

15. Children must honor their parents. This does not always require something akin to filial piety. Each family member must honor their parents in their own way.

16. All family pets and other animals must be treated humanely.

17. All theistic family members must honor the Lord.

18. The natural beauty of the Earth and biodiversity must be maintained for all of the future generations of every living beiong on Earth as we are all members of the Earthling family on a basic level.

19. Familial honor must be defended. However, justice is tantamount.

20. Families must have leadership.

There are lots of contradictions here. A family with family values and with gay, lesbian or bi children would abuse their children if they subscribe to these views and hence violate 5, 7, and 13. Half the marriages end in divorce. This is mostly because parents cant get along anymore. So a family with family values may prefer to stick together to save their honor and blah blah which may result in tension and reduce quality of life and happiness for all family members. And that again violates 5 and 13. Plus teaching your kids that they should settle for someone they dont wanna live anymore instead of a divorce and a remarriage with a loved one is rather sad. And then most families eat meat which is against 16. Most families are not environmentally conscious or sustainable which is against 18. 20 sounds patriarchal which is a terrible example if the family has daughters. Not all theistic families believe in the christian notion of "the Lord". And some theistic families like muslim families may restrict the rights of their children. Like muslim parents not sending their daughters to swimming practice. Or christian families abusing their children who have pre-marital sex. I think I can think more if I spend more time on this but whatever. How old are you?

Am I the only guy here with the following characteristics:
1. Married
2. American
3. 30 years old or more
4. Highly educated
5. Conservative
6. Believe human rights are worth fighting for
7. Believe in the importance of family values
8. Loves capitalism

I mean I am just about sick of talking to people who seem like they are from another planet. Everyone is young. Most are liberals. Many are gay. Most are British. Most are in high school or college. Most are teenagers.

What is it with you folks and why do I bother discussing things with you?

*starts having nervous breakdown*

Maybe you are actually trying to convince yourself rather than us? For whatever reason. Or maybe boredom? I'm surprised your 30 years old or older tho. I guess it's great that your kind is nearing extinction among my generation. At least in Canada.

Hey if you get married to someone you cant let a little thing like unhappiness come between you and your responsibilities. Nobody forces anyone to get married. Nobody forces someone to become a parent (ok some men are forced to by women but men have a little way to go yet to get equality but that is a separate issue). These are big commitments and should not be entered into willy-nilly.

This is one of the funniest posts I've ever read.

Family is complicated.

Indeed it is. I like human sciences. They are always so fascinating.:)

Say what now? What mainstream people really believe that people should really be jailed or tortured for political or religious beliefs?

Being jailed or tortured for political or religious beliefs is one tiny, tiny corner in the gigantic volume or catalogue of "human rights".

To chime in on what is family, I have what I feel is a simple definition:
Any group of people who consider themselves to be family.

It's a very loose definition, to be sure. But it works very well, I think. For example, when 7-8 years ago, I started training in the martial arts. 4-5 years after that, I suddenly found I had a new brother. I don't train under him very often anymore, but, as far as we are concerned, he is my brother and we are family.
How do you all think that is?

As far as "family values" and such go...
that's ridiculous.
GF said earlier that a male and a female are needed in a family to raise children so that the children can see how a marriage works so their marriage can be right. But why do they need to do their marriage "right?" So that their kids will have proper role models! Seems circular to me.

And what is "family honor?" What negative consequences result from not having it? If none, then it does not matter. Right and wrong, good and bad-- these are based on the consequences of an action. Do wrong to another, and you are doing wrong. Do good for another, and you are in the right. All else is neutral; it is neither good nor bad, but it simply is.

Dig deeper (http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org) into the curse of Biblical literalism, and you'll see that anti-gay stances aren't stances so much as they are big globs of lazy, fear-soaked horseshit.

To chime in on what is family, I have what I feel is a simple definition:
Any group of people who consider themselves to be family.


QFT every damn step of the way.

Because of an emotional attachment that goes beyond friendship.

I have someone like that.

Blood relation is important in learning your family background and it helps you on the path to discover who you are, but the emotional commitment is the corner stone for any family unit. Actual blood relations don't mean squat when you can tell a friend you love them like they're your own family.

Oops, I was unclear. I didn't mean "how do you think that's possible?" but "so how do you think that is for a definition?" My apologies.

We can never stop fighting for egual rights for everyone as long as there is idiots in the world that think other people are worth less them thmeself, gay people are not any different than anyone else. I have never heard of a child than has had a bad childhood beacuse his/hers parents are gay. Gay people should defently be able too get married and it´s wrong too forbidd it.
Ignorant people make me so angry! :headbang:

Oops, I was unclear. I didn't mean "how do you think that's possible?" but "so how do you think that is for a definition?" My apologies.

I realised I read it wrong, which is why I went and editted. Both of us munged it. :) No harm, no foul, ja?

Oh man you are so gay.
You are malicious.

Which part of "I'm not gay" was it that confused you?
Good question.

Am I the only guy here with the following characteristics:
1. Married
2. American
3. 30 years old or more
4. Highly educated
5. Conservative
6. Believe human rights are worth fighting for
7. Believe in the importance of family values
8. Loves capitalism

I mean I am just about sick of talking to people who seem like they are from another planet. Everyone is young. Most are liberals. Many are gay. Most are British. Most are in high school or college. Most are teenagers.

What is it with you folks and why do I bother discussing things with you?

*starts having nervous breakdown*
You are welcome to stop posting on the forum if you feel that way. Obviously, we are too uneducated, liberal (in some fuckwad dichotomy where liberal-conservative politics is all there is), and faithless with respect to human rights to be worth talking to, right?

Here's what I think the problem is. You don't seem to believe that human happiness means much of anything, because the physical world is secondary to the Kingdom of G-d. You would rather "bring holiness into someone's life" by having society abandon queers than have people be happy in this life.

So our "problem" is that we don't seem to share your misanthropic view that the spiritual world supersedes the physical world.

I realised I read it wrong, which is why I went and editted. Both of us munged it. :) No harm, no foul, ja?

Bwahahah, since I quoted you before the edit, you'll never be able to hide it! Ever! :D

Are you from the trailer park?

I'm from a cushy outer-city gated community. I think it's more the trash who hold on to outdated bullsh*t like "family honour", to be honest.

Excuse us if we're not as socially primitive as you, with our "individual responsibility" and our "gay marriage". Jeez, we must all be bath-taking, underwear-wearing fops.


Oh man you are so gay.

Haha, and you were saying other people here were teenagers? First "I bet you're all a bunch gays!" and now "Oh man you are so gay."
What next? "HAHAHAHA GAAAAAY"

Here's what I think the problem is. You don't seem to believe that human happiness means much of anything, because the physical world is secondary to the Kingdom of G-d. You would rather "bring holiness into someone's life" by having society abandon queers than have people be happy in this life.

So our "problem" is that we don't seem to share your misanthropic view that the spiritual world supersedes the physical world.

Well said.

Here's what I think the problem is. You don't seem to believe that human happiness means much of anything, because the physical world is secondary to the Kingdom of G-d.

I disagree. He only obsesses about religion in this context, really... in other respects he makes great pains to distance himself from political religion.

He's just a bigot. And like most bigots, he gets defensive when people call him on it.

You are malicious.


Good question.


You are welcome to stop posting on the forum if you feel that way. Obviously, we are too uneducated, liberal (in some fuckwad dichotomy where liberal-conservative politics is all there is), and faithless with respect to human rights to be worth talking to, right?

Here's what I think the problem is. You don't seem to believe that human happiness means much of anything, because the physical world is secondary to the Kingdom of G-d. You would rather "bring holiness into someone's life" by having society abandon queers than have people be happy in this life.

So our "problem" is that we don't seem to share your misanthropic view that the spiritual world supersedes the physical world.

Why are you giving the "spiritual world" to the monopoly of these types? Some people can both be spiritual and happy. I think "the kingdom of christian god" and "christian spirituality" or maybe "christian extremism" suit your points better.

I'm not against homosexual unions, homosexual marriage or whatever anyone wants to call it. I am opposed to what they really want which is a legal status equal to a family. This being the case, anyone can go get a piece of paper, claim joint filing status with children. I don't believe that "anyone" should be able to do that.


I haven't seen any unbiased studies but I'm not sure how 2 homosexual men or 2 homosexual women relate "natural" human compatibility and procreation to a child who only knows homosexual interaction through its homosexual "parents."

And the reason why the gay and lesbian community is not taken seriously is because the majority that you see are only interested in sexual gratification. You can look anywhere, look on craigslist, go downtown to a bar, it's everywhere. And I'm not singling out homosexuals, heterosexuals do it too. Our society is dominated by sex, we are surrounded by it. And if anyone, anywhere is ever to be taken seriously, they have to get past the primitive disposition aligned with sexual gratification. You want to be taken seriously as a person, stop having sex with everything that has a pulse and bragging about it.

Because straight people are all vestal virgins until their monagamous marriages, right? :rolleyes:

I had the pre-family stage in mind, with adults living together. ;)

So those of us who decline to have children don't count as families? /me is confoozed.

Because straight people are all vestal virgins until their monagamous marriages, right? :rolleyes:

Read the bloody post, will you?

"...And I'm not singling out homosexuals, heterosexuals do it too..."

Why are you giving the "spiritual world" to the monopoly of these types? Some people can both be spiritual and happy. I think "the kingdom of christian god" and "christian spirituality" or maybe "christian extremism" suit your points better.
No, you misunderstand. I agree that people can be both spiritual and happy. In fact, many people must be spiritual to be happy: wanting meaning in one's life is integral to the human condition. My point is that no matter how spiritual you are, what really matters is the physical world. The Great Spirit may have created this world for you, but the world still is.

I was remarking that Glorious Freedonia seems to believe that the spiritual world matters more than the physical world.

An unfortunate implication of this belief, and one I find damning, is that if the spiritual world is what really matters, then it doesn't matter how much people suffer and die and are humiliated, just as long as we "bring holiness to someone's life" (quoting Glorious Freedonia).

Read the bloody post, will you?

"...And I'm not singling out homosexuals, heterosexuals do it too..."

Having sex with a lot of people doesn't make you a bad person. Not having sex at all doesn't make you a good person. Maybe we should stop concentrating on what people do in their bedrooms and worry about... oh, I don't know, the plight of the uninsured. Just a thought.

Having sex with a lot of people doesn't make you a bad person. Not having sex at all doesn't make you a good person. Maybe we should stop concentrating on what people do in their bedrooms and worry about... oh, I don't know, the plight of the uninsured. Just a thought.
I have no problem with your viewpoint. But your response to Toxiarra's post implied that Toxiarra was singling gay people out for promiscuity and that he/she believed that straight people are paragons of virtue when clearly he/she said the contrary. That's what I had a problem with.

To chime in on what is family, I have what I feel is a simple definition:
Any group of people who consider themselves to be family.

But....but....it needs to have a mother and a father, who are married and will always stay married, and.....and...honor! And jesus! Unless they're atheists!


That reminds me, one of GF's family values was all theists worshipping the Lord or something? All theists in the family have to worship Jesus. All the hindus in the family, all the muslims, otherwise it isn't a good family and they'll live in a trailer park and destroy society.

Sometimes I wonder why I keep communicating with Southern Baptists, especially since time after time again, they prove their stupidity. Anyways, I was talking to one, and I thought he was a Libertarian, he was Anti-Bush, didn't support the Iraq War, and was a Ron Paul supporter. However, when I brought up the fact that the religious right was controlling the GOP and Bush's attempt to ban Gay Marriage in 2004 was not only a political move, but to appease the Religious Right in his party. He asked me if I supported gay marriage, I said yes, gays and lesbian should have the same rights as the rest of us. Apparently he thought that gay marriage would destroy "family values".

Where the Hell does the notion that "Family values" will be destroyed by gay marriage? I know it's from the GOP's scare tactic handbook, but honestly, if a gay couple move in next door to you, and they adopt a child or if their lesbian, one of them give birth, is that really going to affect your own personal "family values"? If the Right Wing nuts and Religious Fundies want to know what's really destroying "Family values", I can point to several, and I mean several dysfunctional families and broken homes that have destroyed the so called "Family values" more than any married gay couple ever could've.

I'm not saying that gays and lesbian won't have dysfunctional families or broken home of their own, but let's be honest, the simple fact that they are married won't ruin the obsolete notion of "family values" when straight families that has abusive parents, cheating parents, neglectful parents, etc. have done enough damage to this archaic notion.

So, will/do gay family ruin "family values", is there's such thing as "family values" anymore, and which would do more damage, a gay couple or a dysfunctional family, broken home?

/soapbox

short version: elements of Marxism support a "free love" culture which enourages homosexuality, bisexuality and polyamory. The goal is to break up the nuclear family leading to greater reliance on the State.

A Libertarian would naturally be suspicous of anything that could lead to more power for the state.

short version: elements of Marxism support a "free love" culture which enourages homosexuality, bisexuality and polyamory. The goal is to break up the nuclear family leading to greater reliance on the State.

A Libertarian would naturally be suspicous of anything that could lead to more power for the state.
Are you fucking kidding me?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Probably.

Otherwise he somehow doesn't realize that he's attacking libertarianism with libertarianism.
Basically:
You think the State doesn't like nuclear families? The same State that outlaws everything that is not a nuclear family until the injustice of this is shoved up its collective ass?

The goal is to break up the nuclear family leading to greater reliance on the State.

No, it isn't. The argument is actually that traditional marriage is bound up with private property and capitalist institutions.

Encouraging reliance on the State is decidedly not the point. The whole idea, ultimately, is to get rid of the State... and that means the public has to be capable of self-governance.

No, it isn't. The argument is actually that traditional marriage is bound up with private property and capitalist institutions.

Encouraging reliance on the State is decidedly not the point. The whole idea, ultimately, is to get rid of the State... and that means the public has to be capable of self-governance.
Thank you. I was just too flabbergasted and tired to get that response out.

I have a better idea. How about the married couple make each other happy instead?

What if the best way to make the other happy is to leave, and never come back?

They Took r jerbs!

Everybody loves a scapegoat.

<snip>
10. Raising children in poverty is child neglect. If you are not economically ready to provide for a child you are not ready for children.
<snip>


If poverty is measured by someone else's arbitrary assessment of how much money and how many material possessions you have...that is an absurd assertion; while a great segment of the world will agree with you, it is a morally unsound position. If the level of materialism is some personal measure that you use to gauge what would be personal material neglect, then great...whatever floats your boat.

If poverty means lack of the necessities to sustain life (such as food, water, and adequate shelter from typical local elements), then sure, that could be an argument for neglect. - still debatable though, for in the most extreme conditions of poverty, survival of lineage can be a natural consideration.

What of those people which voluntarily denounce materialism, either of their own accord or they believe their god wishes it so?

If poverty is measured by someone else's arbitrary assessment of how much money and how many material possessions you have...that is an absurd assertion; while a great segment of the world will agree with you, it is a morally unsound position. If the level of materialism is some personal measure that you use to gauge what would be personal material neglect, then great...whatever floats your boat.

If poverty means lack of the necessities to sustain life (such as food, water, and adequate shelter from typical local elements), then sure, that could be an argument for neglect. - still debatable though, for in the most extreme conditions of poverty, survival of lineage can be a natural consideration.

What of those people which voluntarily denounce materialism, either of their own accord or they believe their god wishes it so?

I do not really understand your question. I am sorry. A couple should have enough economic resources to provide for the food, clothing, and other necessities that help a child grow up healthy. I am not sure if this answers your question.

There are lots of contradictions here. A family with family values and with gay, lesbian or bi children would abuse their children if they subscribe to these views and hence violate 5, 7, and 13. Half the marriages end in divorce. This is mostly because parents cant get along anymore. So a family with family values may prefer to stick together to save their honor and blah blah which may result in tension and reduce quality of life and happiness for all family members. And that again violates 5 and 13. Plus teaching your kids that they should settle for someone they dont wanna live anymore instead of a divorce and a remarriage with a loved one is rather sad. And then most families eat meat which is against 16. Most families are not environmentally conscious or sustainable which is against 18. 20 sounds patriarchal which is a terrible example if the family has daughters. Not all theistic families believe in the christian notion of "the Lord". And some theistic families like muslim families may restrict the rights of their children. Like muslim parents not sending their daughters to swimming practice. Or christian families abusing their children who have pre-marital sex. I think I can think more if I spend more time on this but whatever. How old are you?

Thanks for reading my post and commenting on it. I am almost 31. I am not sure that leadership is bad for daughters. It is leadership by the eldest (nonsenile) who are usually the women because they live longer. It is patriarchical though in that if Grandfather was alive and "with it" he would be the boss. However, we do not need filial piety levels of obedience. I do not think that patriarchy is vital but leadership sure is.

I haven't seen any unbiased studies but I'm not sure how 2 homosexual men or 2 homosexual women relate "natural" human compatibility and procreation to a child who only knows homosexual interaction through its homosexual "parents."
How do you think hetero parents do it?

Did your hetero parents relate to you by fucking right in front of you? Did they drop trou and show you their genitals?

Exactly what kind of "interaction" do you think hetero parents should be having in front of their kids that homo parents can't?

How do you think hetero parents do it?

Did your hetero parents relate to you by fucking right in front of you? Did they drop trou and show you their genitals?

Exactly what kind of "interaction" do you think hetero parents should be having in front of their kids that homo parents can't?

Is it bum sex?

Thanks for reading my post and commenting on it. I am almost 31. I am not sure that leadership is bad for daughters. It is leadership by the eldest (nonsenile) who are usually the women because they live longer. It is patriarchical though in that if Grandfather was alive and "with it" he would be the boss. However, we do not need filial piety levels of obedience. I do not think that patriarchy is vital but leadership sure is.

I doubt that leadership of the eldest is a very wise concept. They don't have to be senile to have bad ideas about how the world SHOULD be because that is what it WAS when they were young...

I love my grandparents, but I can't say I ever turned to them for advise on anything.

Edit : Well, except for cake recipes from my grandmother, that is.

I doubt that leadership of the eldest is a very wise concept. They don't have to be senile to have bad ideas about how the world SHOULD be because that is what it WAS when they were young...

I love my grandparents, but I can't say I ever turned to them for advise on anything.

Edit : Well, except for cake recipes from my grandmother, that is.

Yes again I find my self agreeing with you. I have noticed on a few occations what I shall call 'senior rage', when those of the older generation complain loudly about people speaking loudly into their mobile phones.

I witnessed some old fella last week on the train shouting at some young bloke to keep his voice down when he was talking on the phone.

The guy just yelled 'Shut up' the younger bloke replied 'Please don't be rude, I'm not being rude to you' and the old duffer shouted 'you're shouting!', to which the youngun replied, quite calmly 'and so are you'

Ahh the scenes you see.

I doubt that leadership of the eldest is a very wise concept. They don't have to be senile to have bad ideas about how the world SHOULD be because that is what it WAS when they were young...

I love my grandparents, but I can't say I ever turned to them for advise on anything.

Edit : Well, except for cake recipes from my grandmother, that is.

To play the devil's advocate...

Some can be quite insightful, like my maternal grandmother-in-law. I've learned some invaluable things from her despite our big differences in faith and how we view the world. That isn't to say there are many elderly people like this; she is just one example of a positive instance.

You, however, are right in general terms, as age doesn't mean one is better suited to make decisions than a younger counter part, and even this applies to children, who need to learn how to make decisions early on, even if those decisions are frivolous.

To play the devil's advocate...

Some can be quite insightful, like my maternal grandmother-in-law. I've learned some invaluable things from her despite our big differences in faith and how we view the world. That isn't to say there are many elderly people like this; she is just one example of a positive instance.

You, however, are right in general terms, as age doesn't mean one is better suited to make decisions than a younger counter part, and even this applies to children, who need to learn how to make decisions early on, even if those decisions are frivolous.

Just to clarify : I'm not saying all older people should be ignored and cannot add anything of value to the lives of the younger ones.
What I am trying to say is that old age is not an automatic virtue, and it does not automatically endow someone with wisdom. Old people are just like the rest of us : some are jerks, some aren't, some are stupid bastards, some aren't.
To apply a blanket assumption of wisdom linked to nothing else but biological age is a gamble I wouldn't want to take.

Just to clarify : I'm not saying all older people should be ignored and cannot add anything of value to the lives of the younger ones.
What I am trying to say is that old age is not an automatic virtue, and it does not automatically endow someone with wisdom. Old people are just like the rest of us : some are jerks, some aren't, some are stupid bastards, some aren't.
To apply a blanket assumption of wisdom linked to nothing else but biological age is a gamble I wouldn't want to take.

Ok, looks like I mis-construed your intended meaning. I wasn't sure what you had meant.

I do not really understand your question. I am sorry. A couple should have enough economic resources to provide for the food, clothing, and other necessities that help a child grow up healthy. I am not sure if this answers your question.

It does rather suggest that our economic status is choice, though.